With the NCAA auditioning for the role of hanging judge, it’s natural to wonder if the harsher punishment guidelines fast-tracked for October adoption might splash onto Miami. Moreover, you might ask if the probable changes could affect North Carolina.

With a caveat that nothing is certain regarding the NCAA, the hunch here is that these two ACC Coastal Division schools – annual football opponents of Virginia Tech and Virginia -- will avoid the proverbial hammer.

The association’s release last week on its proposed sanctions model is a touch misleading with this third-paragraph quote from Oregon State president Ed Ray, chair of the working group that crafted the recommendations.

Such a timeline could have meant curtains for Miami, which is awaiting punishment for the Nevin Shapiro extra-benefits fiasco unearthed last year by Yahoo! Sports’ Charles Robinson. The Hurricanes declared themselves ineligible for football postseason in 2011, but that’s unlikely to spare them further sanctions.

But Ray’s remark pertains only to formal passage. The fourth paragraph of the NCAA release says that after October approval, the new structure would take effect Aug. 1, 2013.

Surely the NCAA can complete Miami’s case in the next 11-plus months. If not, the school’s football and men’s basketball programs might want to duck.

Similar to the recent Penn State penalties that bypassed the traditional enforcement process, the new model would, for the most severe infractions, mandate multi-year postseason bans, scholarship reductions that could approach half the maximum allotment, and fines based on a program’s total budget.

For example, the worst violations would draw a fine of $5,000, plus 3-5 percent of the program’s budget. According to documents filed with theU.S. Department of Education, Miami’s football and basketball budgets for 2010-11 totaled $32.3 million, 5 percent of which is $1.62 million.

That’s petty cash compared to Penn State’s $60 million fine, the equivalent of one year’s football revenue, and the most damaging penalties will certainly be postseason bans and scholarship cuts, both of which hamstring recruiting.

The NCAA also will target offending head coaches with “show-cause orders” that could penalize schools that hire or continue to employ them.

In the release, Ray said: “Coaches come to me and say, ‘I feel like a chump. I’m trying to do things the right way and I have peers who laugh at me because I don’t play the game and bend the rules the way they do.’ That’s got to stop.”

To date, none of this is affecting North Carolina football, ineligible for postseason in 2012 due to extra benefits and academic fraud that occurred under former coach Butch Davis. That said, the Raleigh News and Observer continues to unearth additional examples of academic malfeasance, many of which involve athletes.

Might a more intolerant NCAA, which penalized the Tar Heels in March, revisit their case?

The answer appears to be no, a puzzling stance to many of us. The university contends that since some non-athletes also took the bogus courses, the NCAA has no jurisdiction, but as the Raleigh paper reports, athletic department academic advisors steered players to the fraudulent classes.

ESPN.com’s Dana O’Neil addressed the issue in her column Wednesday, and here was her most salient point:

Were these high school athletes and not Tar Heels, the NCAA and its eligibility center folks would have absolutely no problem saying these courses were clearly bogus and, therefore, not good enough to meet its standards. Whether a high school coach, athletic director or principal coerced a teacher would be irrelevant. …

So why don't the same rules apply once a kid is on campus? Why can the NCAA question the merit of a high school it may never have visited, yet tosses up its hands helplessly when it comes to its “member institutions”?

That’s a question worth pondering, and a question that should unnerve folks in Chapel Hill.

I can be reached at 247-4636 or by e-mail at dteel@dailypress.com. Follow me at twitter.com/DavidTeelatDP